Interesting post Pat,

How often do you think this kind of feature should be used on a course?  Is it best used in moderation or does variety in pin position provide enough variation?  Or do you not want variation? Do you want it to wear on the golfer hole after hole?  

If we accept the premise that 94 % or more of approach shots don't go over the green because most golfers underclub or mishit their approach, this feature becomes exponentially more functional.

Huh?

What percentage of approach and recovery shots are hit over the green?  On one hand you say most golfers take too little club or mishit their shots so over the green doesn't come into play for nearly all (94%) shots.  

On the other hand you say that the falloffs and bunkers become exponentially more functional.  How so?  

Because it creates fear and doubt in the golfers mind.
"performance anxiety"
It places a demand to think and execute in order to make par or better.  It's a deliberate confrontation that the golfer can no longer avoid.  He must meet the challenge or perish.
Sport at its best.[/color]

You state that the falloff and bunker features behind greens strike fear on the approaches and recoveries so that golfers avoid them altogether.  

No, that's not what I said.
With a hole location at the extreme rear of the green the golfer must now confront his fears and the physical configuration of the features that challenge him.  
He must think and execute properly or suffer the consequences.[/color]

Is this preventative effect what you find so outstanding?  


No.  It's the mind and physical challenge[/color]
 
I prefer architecture that provides temptation to take on challenges rather than anti-temptation features.  

This is temptation in a demanding context.
The player must meet the challenge presented by the confluence of the features or suffer one of many fates.[/color]

Perhaps I don't understand your premise.


Possibly[/color]

On greens that slant back to front, with today's green speeds the slope itself is a deterrent to going past the pin.  

Faster green speeds would hasten the ball past the hole, not impede its progress, and, slopes today are fairly mild.[/color]

The steep falloff and bunker adds to that deterrent.  Is it redundant?  I don't think so, but it is already in the player's mind not to go past most pins.

Ahh, but when the hole is located at the back edge of the green, golfers who come up short face long difficult putts.
Golfers who come up short of the green face an extremely difficult task of recovering close to the hole because the fear factor is even more evident.[/color]

On the holes at Mountain Lake with the steep falloffs and deep bunkers at the rear of greens, what is their overall length and length of typical approach shot?  

It varies.  Some are short, others medium, others long.
Yet, the feature works marvelously.

On long holes the feature probably comes more into play on recoveries rather than approaches, whereas on the short and medium holes it comes into play on the approach and the recovery.[/color]

What about the holes might make a low handicapper fire at a rear pin rather than play safe?  

I think that's a function of conditioning and how the player feels about his iron and recovery game DURING his round.[/color]

The position in the routing progression?  

It starts on the 1st hole at Mountain Lake.
A wonderful uphill hole with a center bunker in the fairway, a double plateau green with a narrower back tier flanked on three sides by bunkers.

It then continues throughout the golf course.[/color]

Fronting hazards?  The first hole shows a wide open approach.  Given that it is the first hole of the round, low handicappers aren't likely to play other than the middle of the green and you yourself say that high handicappers misclub or mishit.

The first hole is uphill.
If the golfer plays short, he'll have a long, very difficult approach putt or recovery shot if he deliberately plays short


Those who misclub or mishit are now left with a very dicey recovery to get to the back of the green.  Fear now rears its head.  If they play short, they have a difficult putt, if they go long, recovery is more difficult.  They have to precisely, in their mind and in their execution, calculate and execute the shot to perfection if they want to make a par.[/color]

I don't believe that the great majority of golfers can overcome this unique architectural configuration.

How unique is this feature?  


I think its very unique, but, you'd have to play Mountain Lake to get a feel for it, especially when the hole is cut to the back edge of these greens.  When the hole is cut to the front or middle most golfers don't have any idea of how differently the hole would play with a back hole location.[/color]

A lot of early architecture (less so through the end of the classic era) had abrupt falloffs and bunkers around greens, especially at the rear (8th at Merion East is a good example of many to choose from).  

# 8 is a short hole where the land falls off behind the green, sort of like the short at Lookout Mountain.  It's not the same as Raynor's work at Mountain Lake.[/color]

If anything, it was common until greens were tied into their surrounds differently.  

Raynor's genius was that he made the view of the approach shot look like there was perfect harmony between the front of the green, the green and its surrounds.  It's at the back of the green where the diabolical nature of the architectural features coalesce to form a formidable challenge.[/color]

What if a falloff or bunker is less overt and varied from hole to hole?  

There are some of those at Mountain Lake, but, they present no dynamic challenge to recovery attempts.  On # 16 I hit a 3 iron over the green, actually it hit the down side of a shouldering mound and ran over the green, which runs away from the golfer.  I hit an easy flip, lob wedge to 3 feet and made par.  So, the benign falloffs don't present the same challenge.   When you're behind the green and can't see the putting surface it's substantially more difficult than when you can see the putting surface.[/color]

Does the systematic presentation of the features you refer to work best in the player's mind and game plan?  The way I view it, in a strategic sport, a repeated presentation is less brilliant and more game-like.

You forget that hole locations are balanced.
You don't play 18 holes with the holes at the extreme back edge of the green.  The abundant presence of the feature works quite well when the hole location is at the back of the green.  Ask yourself, if only one hole had this feature, how often would the golfer be exposed to it ?  Once every 18 rounds ?  

At Mountain Lake, sooner or later, during your round, you're going to be confronted by this confluence of features, and, I like that.

On Saturday, # 6, # 9 and # 16 had the hole location at the back of the green, with only # 6 having the steep falloff to a back bunker, whereas, the falloffs at # 9 and # 16 were fairly benign, with # 9 being the dicier of the two.[/color]

Wayne:

In post #3 you're asking Patrick a series of intelligent questions. Don't you know you can't do that with Patrick? He can't handle stuff like that.

You must have missed reply # 10.
I'd suggest that you have someone read it to you.[/color]

I also was blown away by his premise 'if you accept the premise that 94% of shots don't go long.....'

94%???

Where does this guy come up with stuff like that??  

Two prominent, non-related architects quoted that number, hence, with what I had observed over the years, I accepted their number.[/color]

The only intelligent thing to do with Patrick is simply NOT accept about 98% of what he says on here. And the remaining 2% one should only consider with extreme caution!

TE, They say that those with dislexia sometimes reverse their numbers, as you have.[/color]